View
230
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 4 pp. 273–282 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.1215 © 2013 International Reading Association
273
R T
ASSESSING
MOTI VATION TO READ The Motivation to Read Profile–Revised
Jacquelynn A. Malloy ■ Barbara A. Marinak ■ Linda B. Gambrell ■ Susan A. Mazzoni
Designing effective and engaging instruction means considering the
motivational needs of students. The MPR-R is a tool that supports
teachers in creating motivating classroom contexts for literacy.
“If they aren ’ t motivated, they won ’ t learn!”
So goes the maxim often used by teacher
educators to convey the importance of
engagement and motivation to learning
and achievement with their preservice teachers. For
most classroom teachers, recognizing when students
are engaged in literacy activities—and perhaps more
glaringly, when they are not—is a process that is key
to evaluating the potential success of the instruction
being offered.
Students who are engaged have their eyes on what
they are doing, are ardently attending to the teacher ’ s
read-aloud, or are in reflective repose as they read
independently. Going deeper beneath these behav-
ioral manifestations of their literacy engagement,
students who are motivated to participate in literacy
instruction are on task, cognitively and strategically
engaged with the material, and perhaps affectively
responding to the activity as well, enthusiastically
sharing what they ’ ve read with their peers.
The research literature provides strong support
for the tie between reading motivation and read-
ing achievement (Baker & Wigfield, 1999 ; Guthrie
& Wigfield, 2005 ; Pintrich, 2003 ; Taboada, Tonks,
Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009 ). Motivation can be
described as a willingness to engage in an activ-
ity and a willingness to persist in that activity, even
when it becomes difficult (Urdan & Schoenfelder,
2006 ). Therefore, the Motivation to Read Profile
(MRP; Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996 )
was designed to guide the teacher in determining
students’ perceived value of reading and self-concept
as readers such that appropriate instructional deci-
sions could be made. The MRP is also widely used in
literacy research as a measure of student motivation
for reading (Applegate & Applegate, 2010 ; Marinak
& Gambrell, 2010 ; Quirk, Schwanenflugel, & Webb,
2009 ; Shaaban, 2006 ).
Jacquelynn A. Malloy is an assistant professor in the Eugene T. Moore School of Education, Clemson University, South Carolina, USA; e-mail malloy2@clemson.edu .
Barbara A. Marinak is associate professor in the School of Education and Human Services, Mount St. Mary ’ s University, Emmitsburg, Maryland, USA; e-mail marinak@msmary.edu .
Linda B. Gambrell is a distinguished professor in the Eugene T. Moore School of Education, Clemson University, South Carolina, USA; e-mail lgamb@clemson.edu .
Susan A. Mazzoni is an independent literacy consultant in Elkridge, Maryland, USA; e-mail suemazzoni@gmail.com .
trtr_1215.indd 273trtr_1215.indd 273 11/21/2013 4:06:25 PM11/21/2013 4:06:25 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 4 Dec 2013 / Jan 2014R T
274
More recently, the research focus
on achievement motivation has shifted
from that of an individual construct to
one that can be influenced by classroom
contexts and teacher practices (Urdan &
Schoenfelder, 2006 ). They observed: “As
psychologists have rediscovered, moti-
vated behavior in school results from a
combination of student and situational
characteristics” (p. 345). Therefore, the
purpose of this article is to report on an
updated and more reliable revision of
the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP-
R) and to engage in a discussion of how
periodic, classwide administration of the
MRP-R can inform practices to support
motivating classroom contexts.
Theoretical Framework The expectancy-value theory of motiva-
tion (Eccles, 1983 ) is used to describe
the construct of reading motivation
for the MRP-R, as with the original
MRP. Expectancy-value theory posits
that motivation is determined by an
individual ’ s perception that they will be
successful in performing a task ( expec-tancy ) and that they perceive a value in
accomplishing the task. Perceptions of
expectancy are based on Bandura ’ s ( 1977 )
work on self-efficacy, which he described
as self-judgment of a domain-specific
ability to perform a task successfully.
Expectancy is therefore thought to arise
from the individual ’ s task-specific self-
concept. When designing the MRP and
the MRP-R, estimations of students’
motivation to read are determined by
assessing both their self-concept as readers and their value of reading .
Revising the MRP As the original MRP was developed in
1996, a revision that would reflect the
cultural and linguistic changes that
occurred in the ensuing decade was
needed. For example, digital reading
sources were not considered in the orig-
inal version but now are explored in the
revised conversational interview. Four
researchers met to review the origi-
nal MRP items, which included 10 items
designed to measure value of read-
ing and 10 items designed to measure
self-concept as a reader, as well as the
conversational interview that accompa-
nies the scaled survey.
The MRP was designed to be appli-
cable to grades 2 through 6, practical for
classroom use, group administered, and
able to reflect value of reading and self-
concept as a reader. A four-point scale
was chosen to avoid neutral responses
and because the breadth of scale was
suitable for elementary students (Case &
Khanna, 1981 ; Nitko, 1983 ). A set of 100
potential items was suggested by a group
of researchers and then evaluated for
construct validity by the research panel.
Four classroom teachers were asked
to perform a trait assessment on the
remaining items to determine whether
the items would tap self-concept as a
reader or value of reading. The items
that received 100% trait agreement were
included in the field testing of the orig-
inal MRP with 330 third through fifth
graders from 4 eastern U.S. schools. The
scales were found to be reliable (self-
concept = .75; value = .82). Validity of
the original scales was also confirmed
through inter-scale correlations and
correlations with reading achievement
(Gambrell et al., 1996 ).
The reading survey was designed as
a self-report instrument that could be
administered to the whole class or a
small group, depending on the teacher
support required. The four-point ordi-
nal scale includes ranked responses with
10 items for each subscale. Self-concept
as a reader is assessed through items
such as, “I think I am a ____ reader”
and “When I have trouble figuring out
a word I don ’ t know, I…”. Items that are
designed to tap value of reading include
“Reading is something I like to do….”,
and “My friends think reading is…”. A
conversational interview was designed for
individual administration such that fur-
ther exploration of student perceptions
of value of reading and self-concept as a
reader could occur.
The authors, all either having assisted
in the development of the MRP or
having experience in using the MRP for
classroom practice or research, met to
discuss the survey items and conversa-
tional interview, the two components of
the original assessment. One item was
replaced to query student perceptions
of out-of-school reading as opposed to
future perspectives for reading. Seven
of the original items were kept with-
out changes, and 12 items were either
revised in the stem portion with an eye
to cultural and linguistic changes to
provide clarity or in the responses to
improve reliability of the scale.
The conversational interview was
also revised from a paper version to a
Pause and Ponder ■ As a classroom teacher, how do you
typically determine the reading motivation
of your students?
■ What have you done to support the
reading motivation of your students?
■ What benefits might you derive from giving
the Motivation to Read Profile–Revised
(MRP-R) three times per year (beginning,
midpoint, end)?
■ What might you learn from the
conversational interview that would help
you to understand an individual student ’ s
motivational needs?
■ How might the MRP-R be used with
students demonstrating high, average, and
low motivation?
trtr_1215.indd 274trtr_1215.indd 274 11/21/2013 4:06:25 PM11/21/2013 4:06:25 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
www.reading.org R T
275
digitally accessible version that could
be completed using a laptop or tablet.
The structure was adjusted to first query
self-concept as a reader and then value
of reading to more clearly align with
the survey items. In addition, ques-
tions were added to prompt students to
indicate their use of digital texts while
maintaining the original focus on read-
ing for entertainment (narrative) and
for information (expository). An area at
the bottom of the interview form is pro-
vided for recording comments and a
teacher plan for adjustments in instruc-
tion that would be suitable based on
the integrated results of the survey and
interview.
The structure of the MRP-R is over-
viewed in Figure 1 .
Field Testing the MRP-R The reading survey was administered
to students in three schools in the mid-
Atlantic and Southern regions of the
United States—one in Virginia, one
in Pennsylvania, and one in South
Carolina. In all, 118 third graders, 104
fourth graders, and 54 fifth graders
received permission to take the MRP-R,
resulting in 281 students. Teachers
were invited to participate and received
packets that outlined the administra-
tion procedures and scoring guidelines
(Figures 2 and 4 ) as well as copies of
the MRP-R reading survey and con-
versational interview (Figures 3 and
5 ) for their students. Student scores
were loaded into a spreadsheet and
validity and reliability testing was
conducted using Mplus statistical
software.
Reliability and Validity Reliability testing using Cronbach ’ s
( 1951 ) alpha revealed an α = .87 for
the full scale, an α = .85 for the value
subscale, and an α = .81 for the self-
concept scale. As the scale for the survey
items was ordinal, a nonparametric
analysis was used to determine valid-
ity using a root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). An RMSEA
estimate of .089 was revealed with a
confidence interval of .081–.098. The
probability of RMSEA ≤ = .05 was .000.
Considering the ordinal nature of
the survey scale, reliability and validity
estimates are judged to be well within
acceptable ranges for both classroom use
and research purposes. When compared
with the original version, the internal
consistency of the value scale increased
from .82 to .85, and the internal consis-
tency of the self-concept scale increased
from .75 to .81. As the scale is admin-
istered more widely and the volume of
available data increases, the authors can
undertake additional testing that would
allow a disaggregation of data by grade
and by gender.
Administering the MRP-R The reading survey can be administered
to a whole class or small groups. The
conversational interview is to be admin-
istered individually.
Administration and Scoring of the Reading Survey The reading survey can be administered
in whole or in part, depending on the
age of the students and time limits. In
all, the teacher should allow 20–25 min-
utes to give the entire survey or
15 minutes if giving 10 items at a time
over 2 separate sessions. The teacher
can introduce the survey by preview-
ing the importance of knowing what
motivates students to read such that
appropriate instruction can be provided.
Students should be made aware that
there are no right or wrong answers
and that knowing what they really feel
about reading is of greatest impor-
tance. The administration guidelines for
giving the MRP-R reading survey are
provided in Figure 2 .
The survey begins with two demo-
graphic items (grade and gender) that
will help students practice listening
to the entire prompt and the pos-
sible responses before considering
Figure 1 MRP -R Component Overview Motivation to Read Profile Revised
Reading Survey Conversational Interview
Group administration15 20 minutes20 minutesCued ResponseTwo subscales
o Value of Readingo Self-Concept as a Reader
Individual administration15 20 minutes to administerOpen-ended free responseTwo subscales with prompts
o Value of Reading (8 prompts)o Self-Concept as a Reader (5
prompts)
“The reading survey can be administered
to a whole class or small groups.
The conversational interview is to
be administered individually.”
trtr_1215.indd 275trtr_1215.indd 275 11/21/2013 4:06:26 PM11/21/2013 4:06:26 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 4 Dec 2013 / Jan 2014R T
276
their answers. When the teacher
rereads the item and prompt, stu-
dents are instructed to clearly mark
the response that is best for them.
By reading all items and responses
aloud, students of all reading levels
are supported in responding to the
items, as reading ability is not a
confounding variable. The student
version of the reading survey is pro-
vided in Figure 3 .
After the surveys are administered,
a score for each subscale, value of
reading and self-concept as a reader,
is obtained. Adding the two subscale
scores derives a total score for motiva-
tion for reading. Because the response
sets are not uniformly listed from
least to most motivated, a scoring
guide is provided (Figure 4 ) to aide
in determining the appropriate score
for each item. The teacher may wish
to make a note of items that would be
interesting to probe during the con-
versational interview (particularly
low scoring items) by circling the item
number.
Administration of the Conversational Interview The conversational interview is
designed to guide the teacher in con-
ducting informal conversations
with students about their percep-
tions of reading. A copy is provided in
Figure 5 . These responses are helpful
in understanding a student ’ s survey
results as well as to aid in individual-
izing programs to enhance motivation
for reading. The conversational inter-
view can also be administered in
whole or in part, as there are separate
sections for self-concept as a reader
and value of reading. Each section
requires about five minutes. The inter-
view includes topical questions with
follow-up prompts, such as the fol-
lowing: “What kinds of books do you
Figure 2 Administration Guidelines for the Reading Survey
trtr_1215.indd 276trtr_1215.indd 276 11/21/2013 4:06:26 PM11/21/2013 4:06:26 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
www.reading.org R T
277
like to read?” “Do you read different
things at home than at school?” “What
kind of reader are you?”
Research and Classroom Implications The scientific importance of the MRP-R
is that it permits an updated and more
reliable estimate of two theoretically
based subconstructs of motivation for
research purposes in grades 2 through
6. Teachers will benefit from having
a reliable measure for assessing these
important components of motivation for
reading. The classwide results can be
entered into a spreadsheet, and an item-
wise tabulation of averaged scores per
item can be used to suggest changes in
classroom practices that would support
growth in value of reading or to nurture
self-concepts as a reader. Additionally,
the scores for individual students can be
used to determine personalized plans
for supporting students in developing
increased motivation for reading and
therefore increased reading achievement.
Organizing Responses Using a spreadsheet, such as Excel,
create headings for each item by number
and list students’ names in the first
column (see Figure 6 ). Using the scor-
ing guidelines to determine the score
for each item, write the score in the
margin beside the item number on the
student copy of the reading survey and
then input the scores into the spread-
sheet. Adding the odd-numbered items
together will give you a self-concept
Figure 3 Reading Survey
“The scores for
individual students can
be used to determine
personalized plans.”
trtr_1215.indd 277trtr_1215.indd 277 11/21/2013 4:06:26 PM11/21/2013 4:06:26 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 4 Dec 2013 / Jan 2014R T
278
score (out of 40), and adding the even-
numbered items will give you a value
score (out of 40). You can create a for-
mula in Excel that will add the subscores
automatically as you enter the scores.
Similarly, a total score is determined by
adding the two subscores together.
A helpful practice, once all scores are
entered, is to highlight in yellow any
items that receive a low score (such as
a 1 or a 2) to see what can be learned
from those items. For example, if a stu-
dent reports a 1 for item 16 (“When my
teacher reads books out loud, I think it
is [ boring ]”), you might want to explore
the types of books that the student finds
interesting during the conversational
interview. If several students respond
similarly, you may choose to implement
a practice by which you preview several
books for potential read-alouds and then
have students vote on choices. It is also
interesting to look at items for which boys
and girls respond differently as a group.
Looking across the spreadsheet at
individual student responses gives you
an idea of items to explore on the con-
versational interview for each student,
while observing trends in low scores
classwide (by column) would give you
an indication of whole-class needs. For
example, noting a group of students who
respond with a 1 to item 3 (“When I
come to a word I don ’ t know, I can [ never figure it out ]”), a reading group can be
designed to work on word-attack skills.
Using the MRP-R to Inform Instruction Considering the body of research that
connects and supports the relation-
ship between motivation and reading
proficiency (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2005 ;
Pintrich, 2003 ; Taboada, Tonks,
Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009 ), taking
the motivational temperature of your
class, and identifying the motivational
makeup of individual students in your
Figure 3 Reading Survey Continued
trtr_1215.indd 278trtr_1215.indd 278 11/21/2013 4:06:27 PM11/21/2013 4:06:27 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
www.reading.org R T
279
class are key elements in developing
instruction that meets the needs of all of
your students. Just as an informal read-
ing inventory or benchmark assessment
gives you a read on the pulse of what
your students can do or already know,
a quick check of their motivation at the
beginning and midpoint of the school
year may guide you in tailoring instruc-
tion that will support student motivation
and engagement in literacy learning.
Supporting Self-Concept as a Reader .
Self-concept as a reader arises from stu-
dents’ task-specific perceptions of being
able to successfully negotiate the various
aspects and processes of reading, such
as decoding new words, using com-
prehension strategies effectively, and
expressing their thoughts about what
they have read. As Solheim ( 2011 ) sug-
gested, “[t]he level of self-efficacy affects
how much students understand of the
texts they read but probably also the
degree to which they are able to dem-
onstrate what they have actually under-
stood” (p. 22). A student who has a
healthy self-concept as a reader is more
likely to approach the reading tasks with
enthusiasm and interest, to engage in
strategic reading practices, and to be
interested in sharing what he or she has
read (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2005 ; Pressley,
2002 ). Therefore, understanding a stu-
dent ’ s self-concept as a reader pre-
pares the teacher to provide the support
required for engaged reading.
The odd-numbered items in the
reading survey indicate the students’
perceptions of themselves as readers
and provide information regarding the
aspects of reading that may prove trou-
blesome for some. Item 3, for example,
asks students to decide how easily they
can figure out new words, and items 7
and 13 tap into perceptions of reading
comprehension. Low scores for these
items might suggest that individual or
small-group follow-up is important to
further isolate the difficulties experi-
enced in decoding or comprehension
strategy use that might lead to these
perceptions of low self-efficacy for
these tasks. Further exploration during
the conversational interview might
also be helpful in developing specific
teaching plans for supporting these
students.
Item 17 states, “When I am in a
group talking about books I have read, I
[ hate ; don ’ t like ; like ; or love ] to talk about
my ideas.” Some students feel they
Figure 4 Scoring Guidelines for the Reading Survey
“Understanding a student’s self-concept as
a reader prepares the teacher to provide the
support required for engaged reading.”
trtr_1215.indd 279trtr_1215.indd 279 11/21/2013 4:06:27 PM11/21/2013 4:06:27 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 4 Dec 2013 / Jan 2014R T
280
succeed in developing a general under-
standing of a story or a topic but feel
less than adequate in expressing these
interpretations. Low scores on this item,
particularly if seen in several students,
might indicate a need to provide more
explicit instruction and modeling in
how to talk about and respond to text.
As collaboration about texts has been
found to be a motivating element of
instruction (Christie, Tolmie, Thurston,
Howe, & Topping, 2009 ; Reznitskaya,
2012 ), supporting students in talk-
ing about shared texts bolsters their
motivation.
Students may perceive their abil-
ity to read silently as very different from
their ability to read aloud. Item 19 pro-
vides a window to student perceptions
of reading aloud, and low scores here
might suggest some need for develop-
ment of oral reading fluency, such as
Readers Theatre, or practicing a piece for
recording a VoiceThread or Podcast book
recommendation.
Value of Reading . The idea of read-
ing as something that is valued, either
an activity or as a goal, stems from the
work of Eccles ( 1983 ) in developing
the expectancy-value theory of moti-
vation. The value of participating in a
reading task is related to how person-
ally interesting it is, how important the
task is deemed to be, and how the suc-
cessful completion of the task serves
future needs. Therefore, if students feel
that reading is interesting because they
enjoy being absorbed or informed by
text (reading as an activity), or think
that becoming a good reader will help
them in their future careers (reading as
a goal), they will more likely engage and
persist in the reading task presented.
Students who are interested in reading
for these intrinsic, or personal, reasons
will likely be more open to instruction
and development (Pressley, 2002 ).
Figure 5 Conversational Interview
trtr_1215.indd 280trtr_1215.indd 280 11/21/2013 4:06:28 PM11/21/2013 4:06:28 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
www.reading.org R T
281
The even-numbered items on the
reading survey target students’ percep-
tions of value of reading. Some of the
items query a student ’ s thoughts about
individual or recreational reading (items
2, 14, 18, and 20), and others look at read-
ing as a social practice (items 4, 6, 10,
and16). Students who indicate low scores
on the “reading as an individual practice”
items may benefit from an independent
reading program that guides students in
finding personally interesting books at a
“just-right” reading level. Often, students
find reading to be a dissatisfying activity
when they cannot find books on topics
they enjoy at a level that they can inde-
pendently read. Again, following up low
responses on the survey with targeted
questions in the conversational interview
regarding reading interests and prefer-
ences can position the teacher to modify
practices or provide suitable texts to sup-
port individual reading.
Similarly, the items that explore read-
ing as a social practice (text discussions,
social views of reading and readers,
libraries as resources) may guide teach-
ers in adjusting or modifying classroom
practices to influence the value students
place on reading as a socially mediated
practice. For example, if several stu-
dents in the class respond to item 10, “I
think libraries are__________,” with “ a really boring place to spend time ,” then the
teacher should carefully consider ways
that students use the library. Creating
authentic purposes for using the library,
such as for individual research, creating
an individualized text set of books and
materials on a topic of personal interest,
and instituting collective practices such
as reviewing books for potential class-
room library acquisition or student-led
book clubs, would create a value for the
library as a personal and community
resource.
Reading can also be valued as an
achievement goal that is important to
a student ’ s future perspective. In this
sense, becoming a good reader is valued
because it can lead to a career or pro-
fessional interest. Items 8 and 12, in
particular, indicate a student ’ s percep-
tion that becoming a good reader is
valuable to their future goals. A student
who is interested in extreme weather
professions, such as tornado chasing or
hurricane predicting, may develop an
increased value for the goal of becoming
a good reader by being exposed to mete-
orological reports. The conversational
interview is a valuable tool for discover-
ing a student ’ s personal and professional
interests such that targeted reading
activities can be developed that would
support interest in reading as an activity
as well as a valued achievement goal.
Motivation Assessment as a Classroom Practice Assessing the individual and collective
views of students regarding their value of
reading and self-concept as readers is a
classroom practice that supports effective
teaching, group planning, and individ-
ual instruction. Ideally, the MRP-R can
be administered at the beginning of the
year for the teacher to take the initial
pulse of the class and to influence both
whole-group topics and small-group
needs. The MRP-R can be given again
at midyear break to check for changes in
motivation and to determine the efficacy
of practices put in place after the ini-
tial administration. A final check at the
end of the academic year provides feed-
back regarding program modifications
and individual student interventions that
may inform potential adaptations in the
following school year. In all, the class-
room teacher can develop an expanded
view of student, group, and classwide
student needs with very little investment
of time, even with three administrations
of the MRP-R per year.
Understanding the clear ties
between motivation and achieve-
ment, and given the highly variable
Figure 6 Example of Excel Spreadsheet for Reading Survey
Note. Low-scoring items (1s and 2s) are highlighted; additionally, 1s are bolded.
“In all, the classroom teacher can develop
an expanded view of student, group, and
classwide student needs with very little
investment of time.”
trtr_1215.indd 281trtr_1215.indd 281 11/21/2013 4:06:29 PM11/21/2013 4:06:29 PM
A SSESSI NG MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D: T H E MOT I VAT ION TO R E A D PROF I LE – R E V ISED
The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 4 Dec 2013 / Jan 2014R T
282
ability levels, interests, and learning
backgrounds of students, the effective
classroom teacher integrates all avail-
able knowledge of students to design
engaging and comprehensive instruc-
tion. The MRP-R is a tool available to
teachers that will guide them in devel-
oping instructional practices that
support students in becoming engaged
and strategic readers for both personal
and academic literacy needs.
RE F ERENC ES
Applegate , A.J. , & Applegate , M.D. ( 2010 ). A study of thoughtful literacy and the moti-vation to read . The Reading Teacher , 64 ( 4 ), 226 – 234 .
Baker , L. , & Wigfield , A. ( 1999 ). Dimensions of children ’ s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement . Reading Research Quarterly , 34 ( 4 ), 452 – 477 .
Bandura , A. ( 1977 ). Social learning theory . New York, NY : General Learning .
Case , R. , & Khanna , F. ( 1981 ). The missing links: Stages in children ’ s progression from senso-rimotor to logical thought . In K.W. Fischer (Ed.), New directions for child development (Vol. 12 , pp. 21 – 32 ). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass .
Christie , D. , Tolmie , A. , Thurston , A. , Howe , C. , & Topping , K. ( 2009 ). Supporting group work in Scottish primary classrooms: Improving the quality of collaborative dia-logue . Cambridge Journal of Education , 39 ( 1 ), 141 – 156 .
Cronbach , L.J. ( 1951 ). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests . Psychometrika , 16 ( 3 ), 297 – 334 .
Eccles , J.S. ( 1983 ). Expectancies, values, and academic behavior . In J.T. Spencer (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motiva-tion (pp. 75 – 146 ). San Francisco, CA : W.H. Freeman .
Gambrell , L.B. , Palmer , B.M. , Codling , R.M. , & Mazzoni , S.A. ( 1996 ). Assessing motivation to read . The Reading Teacher , 49 ( 7 ), 518 – 533 .
Guthrie , J.T. , & Wigfield , A. ( 2005 ). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading com-prehension assessment . In S.G. Paris , & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children ’ s reading comprehension
and assessment (pp. 187 – 213 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum .
Marinak , B.A. , & Gambrell , L.B. ( 2010 ). Reading motivation: Exploring the gender gap . Literacy Research and Instruction , 49 ( 2 ), 129 – 141 .
Nitko , A.J. ( 1983 ). Educational tests and mea-surement: An introduction . New York, NY : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich .
Pintrich , P.R. ( 2003 ). A motivational science perspective on the role of student moti-vation in learning and teaching contexts . Journal of Educational Psychology , 95 ( 4 ), 667 – 686 .
Pressley , M. ( 2002 ). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced reading ( 2nd ed. ). New York, NY : Guilford .
Quirk , M. , Schwanenflugel , P.J. , & Webb , M. ( 2009 ). A short-term longitudinal study of the relationship between motivation to read and reading fluency skill in second grade . Journal of Literacy Research , 41 ( 2 ), 196 – 227 .
Reznitskaya , A. ( 2012 ). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during litera-ture discussions . The Reading Teacher , 65 ( 7 ), 446 – 456 .
Shaaban , K. ( 2006 ). An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning on read-ing comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and motivation to read . Reading Psychology , 27 ( 5 ), 377 – 403 .
Solheim , O.J. ( 2011 ). The impact of reading self-efficacy and task value on reading compre-hension scores in different item formats . Reading Psychology , 32 ( 1 ), 1 – 27 .
Taboada , A. , Tonks , S.M. , Wigfield , A. , & Guthrie , J.T. ( 2009 ). Effects of motiva-tional and cognitive variables on reading comprehension . Reading and Writing , 22 ( 1 ), 85 – 106 .
Urdan , T. , & Schoenfelder , E. ( 2006 ). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal struc-tures, social relationships, and competence beliefs . Journal of School Psychology , 44 ( 5 ), 331 – 349 .
TA K E AC T ION!
1 . Create a file that contains the reading survey
spreadsheets and conversational interviews of
your students (either digital or hardcopy). The
conversational interview has a place to enter
the reading survey scores and also room for
comments and planning. Refer to this informa-
tion when developing new units of study and also
when determining flexible reading groups so that
students’ motivational needs can be considered.
2 . Use the planning section of the conversa-
tional interview form to note specific changes
in grouping, topics, texts, or practices that you
implement. At the next administration of the
MRP-R, refer back to your notes and record
any changes in motivation. This will help you to
evaluate the effectiveness of your modifications.
trtr_1215.indd 282trtr_1215.indd 282 11/21/2013 4:06:29 PM11/21/2013 4:06:29 PM
Copyright of Reading Teacher is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not becopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.
Recommended